On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey Pat - looks like message expectations that inherit (for lack of a
>>>> better term) the return value from a previously defined stub ignore
>>>> the block, expected_from, and any subsequent arguments passed to the
>>>> message expectation. Can you add examples for those and make sure they
>>>> pass before committing this. I added one for blocks (which fails) to
>>>> get you started - patch attached.
>>>>>> Took care of the blocks and expected_from... I'm not sure what you
>>> mean by "any subsequent arguments passed to the message expectation
>>> though" ? My best guess is that you're talking about the options
>>> hash...
>>>>>> To tell you the truth, I've never used it before :) I figured the
>>> best way to test this was to look at the options_hash_spec (since that
>>> seems like the only place where it's really used?). But what I found
>>> is that those examples seem to be broken...I changed the spec around
>>> to make it clearly fail, but it still passed. I've attached a patch
>>> that shows it (apply it with "git apply"). Do you have any idea
>>> what's going on?
>>>> Yeah - those code examples sucked. They are now greatly improved (and
>> unable to reproduce the false positives you saw):
>>>>http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/5043400>> Okay, so I think http://github.com/pat-maddox/rspec/commit/fab5ddf62> ought to finish it all off. How's it look to you?
Great. Ship it!
Thanks for playing,
David
>> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
>rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel>